United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
CEDERICK E. KNOX, Petitioner,
TRAVIS BRAGG, WARDEN, FCI-BENNETTSVILLE, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, Cederick E. Knox,
(“Petitioner/Knox”), appearing pro se,
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 on April 10, 2018. On August 28, 2018, the
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss along with a return
containing supporting memorandum. (ECF No. 21). The
undersigned issued an order filed August 28, 2018, pursuant
to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir.1975), advising the Petitioner of the motion and the
possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
(ECF No. 22). Petitioner failed to file a response.
complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute
and/or failure to comply with orders of the court.
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990), and Chandler
Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). In
considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule
41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:
(1) the degree of plaintiff's responsibility in failing
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant;
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory
(4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
present case, the Petitioner is proceeding pro se so
he is entirely responsible for his actions. It is solely
through Petitioner's neglect, and not that of an
attorney, that no responses have been filed. Petitioner has
not responded to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or the
court's orders requiring him to respond. No. other
reasonable sanctions are available. Accordingly, it is
recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 41(b).
alternative, the Motion to Dismiss will be addressed on the
AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution Bennettsville in South Carolina. Knox is seeking
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Therefore,
the undisputed procedural and factual background set forth by
the Respondent will be repeated verbatim, herein.
and Plea Agreement
was indicted in the Middle District of North Carolina on
December 18, 2006, and charged in Count One with conspiracy
to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A) and in Count
Two with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A) by possessing 254.5 grams of crack cocaine with
intent to distribute. United States v. Knox, No.
1:06-CR-00471- CCE (M.D. N.C. ) (“M.D. N.C.
case”). On December 27, 2006, the government filed an
information of prior convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§
850, 851(a)(1) citing ...